Aldous huxley has postulated that the spiritual way can take one of three major strands.
Depending on your disposition you may be suited to one or a combination of the three. they being:
1.the way of 'good works'(the christians seem to emphasize this one)
2.the way of devotion-as is practiced hard-core by the hare-krsnas
3.the way of knowledge-as is practiced by writers and the like.
While we may be suited to one over the other , don,t you think that at least a partial knowledge of all three needs to be adhered to if we are to blow away the covers of ignorance?

Originally posted by karoly aczelAldous huxley has postulated that the spiritual way can take one of three major strands.
Depending on your disposition you may be suited to one or a combination of the three. they being:
1.the way of 'good works'(the christians seem to emphasize this one)
2.the way of devotion-as is practiced hard-core by the hare-krsnas
3.the way of knowledge-as ...[text shortened]... knowledge of all three needs to be adhered to if we are to blow away the covers of ignorance?

Originally posted by karoly aczelAldous huxley has postulated that the spiritual way can take one of three major strands.
Depending on your disposition you may be suited to one or a combination of the three. they being:
1.the way of 'good works'(the christians seem to emphasize this one)
2.the way of devotion-as is practiced hard-core by the hare-krsnas
3.the way of knowledge-as ...[text shortened]... knowledge of all three needs to be adhered to if we are to blow away the covers of ignorance?

all of which are wrong.
Any Christian who is devoted to anything but Jesus and trying to be more like him is deceiving himself. A man cannot be good. When it comes to good and bad, there are only two groups of people: Jesus, and everyone else. (Note, this is not say that there isn't saved and not saved, we are just talking morality here). The way I see it: Jesus+anything ruins everything.

Originally posted by karoly aczelAldous huxley has postulated that the spiritual way can take one of three major strands.
Depending on your disposition you may be suited to one or a combination of the three. they being:
1.the way of 'good works'(the christians seem to emphasize this one)
2.the way of devotion-as is practiced hard-core by the hare-krsnas
3.the way of knowledge-as ...[text shortened]... knowledge of all three needs to be adhered to if we are to blow away the covers of ignorance?

Yes. I would stress the “way of knowledge” as foundational (though, “in another lifetime”, so to speak, my disposition was toward the “way of devotion” and faith):

If one wants to do good works, one needs to have some idea what works (actions) are likely to result in “good”. One also has to have some ethical sense of what “goodness” entails.

If one follows the “way of devotion”—or of “faith”—one needs to know what one believes, and that those beliefs are coherent. If one cannot clearly and coherently define what they believe, they might not even know what they’re talking about.

The “way of knowledge” requires constant questioning and testing—of one’s own beliefs and convictions. The presumption of infallibility is not an option. Dogmatism is not an option.

The “way of knowledge” is the way of inquiry and self-challenge, not the way of comfortable pseudo-certainties, or security-blanket acceptance of any unquestioned authority. That also means continual questioning of one’s efforts in the other two “ways”. Without the “way of knowledge”, the other two can become nothing more than blind indulgence: “I must have been good, because I was trying to be good. I must have been right, because I had faith—or was rigorous and sincere in my devotion.”

I have practiced all three ways—poorly or well; sometimes poorly, at least sometimes (hopefully) well. I find the “way of knowledge” to be the most challenging, because it offers no security-blanket; one who cannot tolerate the risk of uncertainty cannot walk that path for long.

The absolute most that one can ever say is (to quote Monk): “I might be wrong; but I don’t think so.”

Originally posted by vistesdYes. I would stress the “way of knowledge” as foundational (though, “in another lifetime”, so to speak, my disposition was toward the “way of devotion” and faith):

If one wants to do good works, one needs to have some idea what works (actions) are likely to result in “good”. One also has to have some ethical sense of what “goodness” entails.

If one ...[text shortened]... lute most that one can ever say is (to quote Monk): “I might be wrong; but I don’t think so.”

Thank you mr.v for this and other insightful comments.
As for the one two above this-What rubbish! And what is this about Jesus??
Jesus is in a box circling the Earth doing hard-core penance...don't expect him to save anyone,he needs to save himself first!!!!

Originally posted by karoly aczelAldous huxley has postulated that the spiritual way can take one of three major strands.
Depending on your disposition you may be suited to one or a combination of the three. they being:
1.the way of 'good works'(the christians seem to emphasize this one)
2.the way of devotion-as is practiced hard-core by the hare-krsnas
3.the way of knowledge-as ...[text shortened]... knowledge of all three needs to be adhered to if we are to blow away the covers of ignorance?

…don,t you think that at least a partial knowledge of ALL THREE needs to be adhered to if we are to blow away the covers of IGNORANCE?
… (my emphasis)

I don’t understand; what does 'good works' and ‘devotion’ got to do with “IGNORANCE“? -I mean, how would those two things “blow away the covers of IGNORANCE”? “blow away the covers of IGNORANCE” of what exactly?

-I once did a whole year doing nothing but charity work -but not sure how that made me less ‘ignorant’ although I did the charity work without being a religious nut -religion didn’t come into it and why should it? After all, isn’t blind faith just another form of ignorance?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[b]…don,t you think that at least a partial knowledge of ALL THREE needs to be adhered to if we are to blow away the covers of IGNORANCE?
… (my emphasis)

I don’t understand; what does 'good works' and ‘devotion’ got to do with “IGNORANCE“? -I mean, how would those two things “blow away the covers of IGNORANCE”? “blow away the covers of IGNO ...[text shortened]... t come into it and why should it? After all, isn’t blind faith just another form of ignorance?[/b]

Yeah well thts what i was trying to get at- if you only focus on one without recognizing the other two then you will 'stay in darkness'
I would say we are all in 'ignorance' of our 'true' nature...which is Divine

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[b]…don,t you think that at least a partial knowledge of ALL THREE needs to be adhered to if we are to blow away the covers of IGNORANCE?
… (my emphasis)

I don’t understand; what does 'good works' and ‘devotion’ got to do with “IGNORANCE“? -I mean, how would those two things “blow away the covers of IGNORANCE”? “blow away the covers of IGNO ...[text shortened]... t come into it and why should it? After all, isn’t blind faith just another form of ignorance?[/b]

I really owe you a better explanation of what Ignorance is but...I just cant summon the brain-power at the moment. sorry

Originally posted by karoly aczelYeah well thts what i was trying to get at- if you only focus on one without recognizing the other two then you will 'stay in darkness'
I would say we are all in 'ignorance' of our 'true' nature...which is Divine

…if you only focus on one without recognizing the other two then you will 'stay in darkness' …

-So you claim. How would that answer any of my questions?

…I would say we are all in 'ignorance' of our 'true' nature...which is DIVINE
..…

So I am “DIVINE”?
I wouldn’t be so arrogant to believe that I am ‘divine‘.
Do you believe that you are ‘divine‘?
It wouldn’t be lack of 'ignorance' for me to believe that I am ‘divine‘ but arrogance.
-what premise is there for me to believe that I am ‘divine‘?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[b]…if you only focus on one without recognizing the other two then you will 'stay in darkness' …

-So you claim. How would that answer any of my questions?

…I would say we are all in 'ignorance' of our 'true' nature...which is DIVINE
..…

So I am “DIVINE”?
I wouldn’t be so arrogant to believe that I am ‘divine‘.
Do you believe ...[text shortened]... am ‘divine‘ but arrogance.
-what premise is there for me to believe that I am ‘divine‘?[/b]

So many questions...
I will just say tha our true narure is divine however we are largley IGNORANT of it
IF yo want to call me arrogant well, thats fine, no skin of my back

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[b]…don,t you think that at least a partial knowledge of ALL THREE needs to be adhered to if we are to blow away the covers of IGNORANCE?
… (my emphasis)

I don’t understand; what does 'good works' and ‘devotion’ got to do with “IGNORANCE“? -I mean, how would those two things “blow away the covers of IGNORANCE”? “blow away the covers of IGNO ...[text shortened]... t come into it and why should it? After all, isn’t blind faith just another form of ignorance?[/b]

Like...to dispel the ignorance of our mortal nature we must engage in all three of these different 'ways' of 'knowing God'
any clearer?

Originally posted by karoly aczelSo many questions...
I will just say tha our true narure is divine however we are largley IGNORANT of it
IF yo want to call me arrogant well, thats fine, no skin of my back

Originally posted by karoly aczelLike...to dispel the ignorance of our mortal nature we must engage in all three of these different 'ways' of 'knowing God'
any clearer?

…Like...to dispel the ignorance of our mortal nature
…

How would you know (i.e. be rationally certain) that to think that you are a mere mortal is ‘ignorance’?
To be ‘ignorant’ of hypothesis X, hypothesis X must first be true. So how do you know that there is an afterlife (and specifically the kind defined by Christians? -not sure what your beliefs are) awaiting us all?

…we must engage in all three of these different 'ways' of 'knowing God'
..…

How would you engaging in all three of those suggested specific things logically lead you to the conclusion that you are not mortal?
Can you explain exactly what your reasoning process would be?